Considerations in developing a specialized epilepsy employment program: A sponsor's playbook.

Specialized vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs in epilepsy have routinely performed more successfully than general or state-federal VR programs. This article presents the key areas of emphasis in successful epilepsy VR program development to include initial program drivers, choice of VR services model, perspectives on program elements, clients, staffing, service evaluation metrics, operational considerations, and the partnering sponsor's personnel support. Considerable emphasis is placed on the importance and diversity of funding in sustaining a specialized epilepsy VR program. This template of considerations provides potential program implementers with a general framework for successful epilepsy VR program development.

Workplace discrimination for persons with hearing loss: Before and after the 2008 ADA Amendments Act.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with hearing loss experience unique barriers to employment frequently documented in the areas of communication and education. The purpose of this article is to contribute to extend this inquiry to the uniqueness of workplace discrimination involving persons with hearing loss. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated differences in allegations of workplace discrimination filed by persons with hearing loss ("Hearing") compared to those filed by persons with other physical or neurological disabilities (General Disability, or "GENDIS") before and after the enactment of the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (2008 Amendments). METHODS: Using secondary data collected from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System, we employ simple measures of proportion and odds ratios to describe differences between allegations derived from GENDIS and Hearing loss populations. These are population statistics, and not samples, of all allegations of discrimination reported to the EEOC through 2016. The comparisons involve Characteristics of the Charging Parties, Issues or discriminatory behaviors alleged, and closure statuses or Merit Rate of the EEOC's investigations - both before and after the 2008 Amendments. RESULTS: Following the 2008 Amendments, Charging Parties changed dramatically on age and gender status. Reasonable Accommodation, Hiring, Harassment, and employment Terms and Conditions showed unique features between groups and/or time periods. The "veracity" (confirmed truthfulness or merit) of the EEOC allegation (or Merit) rate also changed following the Amendments: higher for GENDIS; lower for Hearing. CONCLUSIONS: Possible rationale for these findings are offered, and new research questions are raised. Finally, implications for the cross-disability movement are presented.

Patterns of workplace discrimination across broad categories of disability.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to explore patterns of discrimination in relation to broad-basis categories of disability and (b) to investigate patterns of discrimination between allegations derived from charging parties with sensory impairments versus those with nonsensory impairments. Basis categories included physical, behavioral, neurological, and sensory impairments. RESEARCH METHOD: Database mining, descriptive analysis, and Pearson's chi-square analyses were utilized to compare broad-basis categories. RESULTS: In general, regardless of disability type, individuals experience the highest frequency and proportion of workplace discrimination in the areas of termination and reasonable accommodations. However, there are significant differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of the four broader groups. CONCLUSIONS: Noteworthy differences exist regarding the experience of workplace discrimination among basis categories of disability, especially with respect to sensory impairment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Community service coordination for minority clients with disabilities: 10-step guidelines.

Although many resources are available to rehabilitation counselors to utilizing community resources for minority clients with disabilities, guidelines specific to service allocation are not easily available. The purpose of this article is to provide rehabilitation counselors with a simple, modifiable service allocation template for this purpose. A 10-step referral making process with real-world examples is presented. Special attention is given to ways in which counselors can appropriately allocate and monitor services when working with minority clients, followed by a case study demonstrating how the model may be applied.

ADA Title I allegations and the Mining, Quarrying, and Oil/Gas Extraction industry.

BACKGROUND: The majority of research about employment discrimination in the U.S. Mining, Quarrying, and Oil/Gas (MQOGE) industries has concentrated on gender and race, while little attention has focused on disability. OBJECTIVE: To explore allegations of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title I discrimination made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by individuals with disabilities against MQOGE employers. METHODS: Key data available to this study included demographic characteristics of charging parties, size of employers, types of allegations, and case outcomes. Using descriptive analysis, allegation profiles were developed for MQOGE's three main sectors (i.e., Oil/Gas Extraction, Mining except Oil/Gas, and Support Activities). These three profiles where then comparatively analyzed. Lastly, regression analysis explored whether some of the available data could partially predict MQOGE case outcomes. RESULTS: The predominant characteristics of MQOGE allegations were found to be quite similar to the allegation profile of U.S. private-sector industry as a whole, and fairly representative of MQOGE's workforce demographics. Significant differences between MQOGE's three main sector profiles were noted on some important characteristics. Lastly, it was found that MQOGE case outcomes could be partially predicted via some of the available variables. CONCLUSIONS: The study's limitations were presented and recommendations were offered for further research.

Challenges Persist Under Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act: How Can Oncology Providers Help?

PURPOSE: To determine whether the Amendments to the hallmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; effective January 2009), which provide increased access to the antidiscrimination laws for many with chronic illness, are related to changes in workplace discrimination allegations in individuals with a history of cancer. METHODS: Information collected by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was used to compare allegations of discrimination and their merit before (2001 to 2008) and after (2009 to 2011) implementation of the Amendments Act. RESULTS: Allegations related to terms of employment (eg, promotions, wages) were more likely to be filed (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.61) and determined to have merit (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.77) after implementation of the Amendments Act. Allegations related to workplace relations (eg, harassment, discipline, discharge) were also more likely to be filed post Amendments Act (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.78), although the merit of this complaint remained stable. Filing of all other allegations of discrimination (ie, hiring, reasonable accommodation, and termination) and their merit remained unchanged post Amendments Act. CONCLUSION: Despite the implementation of the Amendments Act, discrimination allegations in those with a history of cancer persisted or in certain areas increased. Although prevention of workplace discrimination rests primarily with employers, the oncology care team is uniquely qualified to provide information related to residual symptoms and function that can facilitate more personalized solutions to workplace discrimination, such as successful workplace accommodations. Information is provided that can assist the oncology team in their efforts to improve work outcomes.

Psychosocial Adaptation to Chronic Illness and Disability: A Virtue Based Model.

PURPOSE: Psychosocial adaptation to chronic illness and disability (CID) is an area of study where a positive psychology perspective, especially the study of virtues and character strengths, can be implemented within the rehabilitation framework. A carefully developed theory to guide future interdisciplinary research is now timely. METHODS: A traditional literature review between philosophy and rehabilitation psychology was conducted in order to develop a virtue-based psychosocial adaptation theory, merging important perspectives from the fields of rehabilitation and positive psychology. RESULTS: The virtue-based psychosocial adaptation model (V-PAM) to CID is proposed in the present study. CONCLUSIONS: The model involves five qualities or constructs: courage, practical wisdom, commitment to action, integrity and emotional transcendence. Each of these components of virtue contributes to an understanding of psychosocial adaptation. The present study addresses the implications and applications of V-PAM that will advance this understanding.

ADA perceived disability claims: a decision-tree analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to examine the possible interactions of predictor variables pertaining to perceived disability claims contained in a large governmental database. Specifically, it is a retrospective analysis of US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) data for the entire population of workplace discrimination claims based on the "regarded as disabled" prong of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of disability. METHODS: The study utilized records extracted from a "master database" of over two million charges of workplace discrimination in the Integrated Mission System of the EEOC. This database includes all ADA-related discrimination allegations filed from July 26, 1992 through December 31, 2008. Chi squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) was employed to analyze interaction effects of relevant variables, such as issue (grievance) and industry type. The research question addressed by CHAID is: What combination of factors are associated with merit outcomes for people making ADA EEOC allegations who are "regarded as" having disabilities? RESULTS: The CHAID analysis shows how merit outcome is predicted by the interaction of relevant variables. Issue was found to be the most prominent variable in determining merit outcome, followed by industry type, but the picture is made more complex by qualifications regarding age and race data. Although discharge was the most frequent grievance among charging parties in the perceived disability group, its merit outcome was significantly less than that for the leading factor of hiring.

Workplace discrimination and autism spectrum disorders: The National EEOC Americans with Disabilities Act Research project.

Using the Integrated Mission System of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the employment discrimination experience of Americans with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) is documented for Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The researchers examine demographic characteristics of the charging parties; the industry designation, location, and size of employers against whom complaints are filed; the nature of discrimination (i.e., type of complaint) alleged to occur; and the legal outcome or resolution of these complaints. Researchers compare and contrast these key dimensions of workplace discrimination involving individuals with ASDs and persons with other physical, sensory, and neurological impairments. Researchers also attempt to discern whether or not the resolutions of the ASD charges can be predicted using the variables available for analysis. The comparative findings of this study indicate that individuals with ASDs were more likely to make charges of discrimination against Retail industry employers. Persons with ASDs were also more likely to make charges of discrimination when they were younger, male, and/or of Native American/Alaskan Native ethnicity. The predictive findings of this study indicate that the odds of ASD charges resulting in meritorious resolution (i.e., discrimination determined by the EEOC to have occurred) increase when the discrimination was encountered in Service industries and by larger employers. Implications for policy, advocacy and further research efforts are addressed.

Discrimination in hiring under the Americans with Disabilities Act: an overview of the National EEOC ADA Research Project.

This article is intended to provide an overview of the National EEOC ADA Research Project. It also previews four subsequent articles pertaining to the issue of hiring discrimination involving Americans with disabilities.

Drivers of hiring discrimination for individuals with disabilities.

INTRODUCTION: Hiring discrimination in the workplace is defined as failure or refusal by an employer to engage a qualified applicant as an employee due to the existence or consequence of disability. The specific intent of this study is to determine what differentiates an allegation (perception of discrimination) from an actual discriminatory event (Merit Resolution). METHODS: Researchers used a data-mining approach, the Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID), to examine 19,527 resolved allegations of hiring discrimination in order to differentiate between Merit Resolution and Non-Merit Resolution outcomes. RESULTS: CHAID analysis confirmed that hiring discrimination is a complex matter with a variety of influences. Primary among these is the age of the Charging Party, with younger applicants (16-34) prevailing in their allegations 34% of the time. Within this subgroup, the sequence of predictor variables involves the Charging Party's impairment, followed by the Employer's industry classification. Behavioral disabilities, even among the young, result in generally lower Merit Resolution rates in hiring discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: Providers of training and technical assistance regarding hiring and disability may be able to adjust their services accordingly on the basis of findings such as these.

A comparison of EEOC closures involving hiring versus other prevalent discrimination issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the Merit Resolution rate for allegations of Hiring discrimination that were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. An allegation is the Charging Party's perception of discrimination, but a Merit Resolution is one in which the EEOC has determined that a discriminatory event did indeed occur. A Non-Merit Resolution is an allegation that is closed due to a technicality or lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that discrimination occurred. Merit favors the Charging Party; Non-Merit favors the Employer. METHODS: The Merit Resolution rate of 19,527 closed Hiring allegations is compared and contrasted to that of 259,680 allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of subcategories of Merit and Non-Merit outcomes. RESULTS: The overall Merit Resolution rate for Hiring is 26% compared to Non-Hiring at 20.6%. Employers are less likely to settle claims of hiring discrimination without mediation, and less likely to accept the remedies recommended by the EEOC when hiring discrimination has been determined. CONCLUSION: Hiring is not an unusual discrimination issue in that the overwhelming majority of allegations are still closed in favor of the Employer. However, it is counterintuitive that hiring has a higher merit resolution rate than other prevalent issues. This finding contradicts the assumption that hiring is an "invisible process." Considering that the EEOC makes merit determinations at a competitive rate, it is clear that hiring is sufficiently transparent.

Hiring discrimination against people with disabilities under the ADA: characteristics of employers.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the characteristics of employers against whom allegations of hiring discrimination were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. METHODS: Employer characteristics derived from 19,527 closed Hiring allegations are compared and contrasted to 259,680 closed allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of factors including industry classification, size of workforce, and location. RESULTS: As compared to non-hiring allegations, hiring allegations were more likely to be filed against employers with 15-100 employees, in the West U.S. Census track region, or in industries including educational services; public administration; transportation and warehousing; professional, scientific, and technical services; agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; and construction. CONCLUSION: More outreach regarding ADA responsibilities appears indicated for those employers who share the aforementioned characteristics.

Hiring discrimination against people with disabilities under the ADA: characteristics of charging parties.

INTRODUCTION: This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the characteristics of Charging Parties who filed allegations of Hiring discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. METHODS: Charging Party Characteristics derived from 19,527 closed Hiring allegations are compared and contrasted to 259,680 closed allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of factors including age, gender, impairment, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Most allegations of ADA job discrimination fall into the realm of job retention and career advancement as opposed to job acquisition. Hiring allegations, however, tend to be filed by Charging Parties who are disproportionately male, younger or older applicants, white, and coping with physical or sensory disabilities. CONCLUSION: Prevailing theories about stigma suggest that negative attitudes are more prevalent toward persons with behavioral disabilities. However, this study provides clear evidence that one behavioral manifestation of negative attitudes, Hiring discrimination, is more often directed at persons with physical or sensory impairments. More outreach regarding ADA rights appears indicated for individuals who share the aforementioned characteristics.

Gender as a differential indicator of the employment discrimination experiences of Americans with multiple sclerosis.

Information from the Integrated Mission System of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was used to investigate the employment discrimination experiences of women and men with multiple sclerosis (MS). Spanning the years 1992 to 2003, the EEOC database included 3,663 allegations of discrimination filed by 2,167 adults with MS. With respect to women and men with MS, the researchers examined the comparability of a) demographic characteristics; b) industry designations, locations, and size of employers; c) the nature of discrimination alleged; and d) the legal outcome or resolution of those allegations. On average, women and men with MS were in their early forties, with the majority of both groups being Caucasian. Both women and men were most likely to allege discrimination related to discharge and reasonable accommodations, although women were more likely to file harassment charges than men. Men with MS were more likely to allege discrimination regarding hiring and reinstatement. Women with MS were more likely to file allegations against employers in the service industries, and men were more likely to file allegations against employers in the construction, manufacturing, and wholesale industries. No gender differences were found in the geographic distribution of allegations. Both groups had comparable rates of merit closures (23% vs. 27%) as a result of the EEOC's investigatory process. Implications for rehabilitation counseling and employer-oriented interventions are discussed.

Workplace discrimination and cancer.

Data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System database were analyzed with specific reference to allegations of workplace discrimination filed by individuals with cancer under ADA Title One. These 6,832 allegations, filed between July 27, 1992 and September 30, 2003, were compared to 167,798 allegations from a general disability population on the following dimensions: type of workplace discrimination; demographic characteristics of the charging parties (CPs); the industry designation, location, and size of employers; and the outcome or resolution of EEOC investigations. Results showed allegations derived from CPs with cancer were more likely than those in the general disability population to include issues involving discharge, terms and conditions of employment, lay-off, wages, and demotion. Compared to the general disability group, CPs with cancer were more likely to be female, older, and White. Allegations derived from CPs with cancer were also more likely to be filed against smaller employers (15-100 workers) or those in service industries. Finally, the resolution of allegations by CPs with cancer were more likely to be meritorious than those filed from the general disability population; that is, actual discrimination is more likely to have occurred.

Patterns in perceived employment discrimination for adults with multiple sclerosis.

Using multiple correspondence analysis, data from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1992-2003) were examined for types and patterns of allegations of discrimination filed by adults with multiple sclerosis (MS) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Women comprised the majority of the Charging Parties (n=687, 67%), and most of the Charging Parties were White (n=769, 76%). The total number of allegations studied (N=3,668) was divided into two datasets, specifically 1,142 occurring separately and 2,526 occurring as part of a multiple allegation set. The four most frequent allegations were related to discharge, reasonable accommodation, terms and conditions of employment, and harassment. Multiple correspondence analysis indicated that a 5 axis model was required to explain approximately 50% of the variance in allegation patterns, and no charging party or employer characteristics were related to the axes. Axis themes derived from perceived discrimination on the part of employers included threats to retention (2 axes), employer hostility, informal or formal employer actions, and barriers to career mobility. Results supported the need for rehabilitation counseling interventions to help adults with MS identify and address precipitants to discharge (involuntary termination) or constructive discharge (voluntary termination in response to an untenable work situation).

Multiple chemical sensitivity and workplace discrimination: the national EEOC ADA research project.

Information from the Integrated Mission System of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was used to investigate the employment discrimination experiences of Americans with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) in comparison to Americans in a general disability group with allergies, asthma, HIV, gastrointestinal impairment, cumulative trauma disorder and tuberculosis. Specifically, the researchers examined demographic characteristics of the charging parties; the industry designation, location, and size of employers against whom allegations were filed; the nature of discrimination (i.e., type of adverse action) alleged to occur; and the legal outcomes or resolutions of these allegations. Findings indicate that persons with MCS were, on average, older than the comparison group and comparatively overrepresented by Caucasians and women. People with MCS were proportionally more likely than the comparison group to allege discrimination related to reasonable accommodations. People with MCS were proportionally more likely than the comparison group to file allegations against employers in the manufacturing and public administration industries, employers with 201-500 workers, and employers in the Western Census region. People with MCS were proportionally more likely than the comparison group to receive non-merit resolutions as a result of the EEOC's Americans with Disabilities Act Title I investigatory process. Implications for policy and advocacy are addressed.

Epilepsy and workplace discrimination: population characteristics and trends.

This study investigates the nature of allegations of workplace discrimination made by job seekers and workers with epilepsy. Demographic characteristics of individuals making allegations were consistent with those of individuals with epilepsy nationwide. Approximately three-fourths of allegations were related to post-hire issues, such as discrimination in promotion and termination, disciplinary actions, and harassment. The lowest rate of merit allegation was related to discrimination in hiring. Comparison of merit allegations before and after the U.S. Supreme Court's Sutton decision revealed that claimants have had higher rates of success following the decision, suggesting that the Sutton decision has had no negative effect on claimants with epilepsy.